The Scene. The Prime Minister was pleading humble competence, all shrugs and up-turned palms. But then Michael Ignatieff, having tried his first two questions in French, had to go and repeat his accusations in English.

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be able to count on their government to help them find jobs no matter how they vote and no matter where they live, but instead we have a government that is using infrastructure money like a rewards program,” the Liberal leader alleged.

“Quebec’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average, yet Quebeckers are receiving the lowest per capita infrastructure funding in all of Canada,” he continued. “How does the Prime Minister explain this? How does he explain his own numbers?”

And soon enough, Mr. Harper’s pointy finger was back out, poking a hole in the air before him.

“We are working with provincial and territorial governments across the country and of course there will be a more or less rough per capita distribution on all of these programs,” he ventured. “The fact of the matter is 7,500 projects have been identified, 4,000 that are under way. Rather than flailing around trying to come up with excuses for an unnecessary and wasteful election the leader of the opposition and his party should be supporting the economic action plan, should be supporting these projects in Quebec and all across this country.”

Perhaps he should. But then he already did. And now it’s Jack Layton’s turn to carry that load.

Next it was Marlene Jennings’ turn, the Liberal rising to show-off a jacket that featured no less than four zippers. So far as she could tell, the government was steadfastly avoiding full disclosure of its ways and means. John Baird rose to dismiss this concern. Ms. Jennings rose to suggest he was not answering her question.

“Where’s Denis?” begged one Conservative. “We want Denis.”

Mr. Baird stood and begged for sanity. “Mr. Speaker,” the Transport Minister declared, “we have put aside partisan politics and are working very well with every provincial government.”

The Liberals found this particularly hilarious.

All was mere preamble though to another airing of Gerard Kennedy’s grievances.

Previous to perhaps two weeks ago, Mr. Kennedy was most famous for having shifted the balance of power to Stéphane Dion at the surreal Liberal leadership convention of 2006. As you might’ve noticed, this did not work out particularly well for anyone, save perhaps Stephen Harper.

But here is Mr. Kennedy now, looking into things, doing research, adding and subtracting large numbers, carrying the one and generally making it his job to hold the government to account on a daily basis. And such is the current state of things that such stuff has seemed no less than revolutionary. Indeed, if you weren’t paying sufficient attention, you might assume Mr. Kennedy was a member of the NDP caucus.

“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister forgot a few things when he was bragging in New Brunswick about how he was looking after the economy,” Kennedy offered today with his first effort. “He forgot to tell Canadians that he was really just looking after himself, how he gave his own MPs in New Brunswick an average of 44% more in grants than opposition ridings in the province. Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to Canadians today what Mr. Landon, now a former candidate in Markham, has already made public—that Conservative ridings get more than other ridings and that the only jobs the government is interested in are jobs for themselves?”

The Prime Minister would not. In his place, Mr. Baird boasted of the government’s fine work in Mr. Landon’s former riding.

Mr. Kennedy was unimpressed with this response, and with volume and force befitting his surname, he stepped up his prosecution.

“Mr. Speaker, if that minister had the courage to actually put the numbers out, we could tell how he is letting down Canadians right across the country. If the Prime Minister was not so nailed to his chair, he would stand up and say how it is fair that some Canadians are punished for not voting for him,” he yelled, not bothering to intake air between words.

“The Prime Minister gave his six MPs in New Brunswick $18.5 million more on average than the other ridings in the province at the expense of the families that are unemployed in the province of New Brunswick,” he continued, his face turning an impressive shade of maroon. “He made sure his people were four out of the top five. Why should Canadians anywhere in Canada trust him to look after their interests?”

His Liberal mates stood to applaud his performance.

“Mr. Speaker,” observed Mr. Baird, “there is a lot of bluster.”

Coming from the Transport Minister, there is perhaps no higher compliment.

The Stats. The economy, 11 questions. Forestry, seven questions. Employment, four questions. Taxation, three questions. Afghanistan, immigration, government interference and crown assets, two questions. The Philippines, farmers, seniors, the auto industry and sports, one question each.

If you did, you'd know that Rusty reneged on federal funding for an Ottawa LRT system that would be humming along today, were it not for his meddling. He pulled this stunt while he was TB President, during a municipal election campaign that was won by a conservative multi-millionaire. The city had to pay for a multi-million-dollar settlement to Siemens, which had been awarded the contract. This incident is an example of how money committed by the Harper government did not translate into shovels in the ground or jobs created. Quite the opposite!

You did not complete what you meant by the opposite. Ottawa taxpayers are now on the hook for 30 something million penalty to Siemens. There are rumors that each household may be asked to pay $200. John Baird and Larry O'Brien are not names you want to mention to some people in Ottawa today, but of course, the Cons supporters will say it is all the fault of the opposition parties.

Gee, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are not a few voters, especially 10 ridings in QC, that might be saying to themselves "I'd better continue to vote CPC if I want jobs." Given the fact that the Tories are only a few seats short of a majorty, it seems like a good idea to be generous to your supporters. By harping on this fact, our friend Mr Kennedy may simply be reinforcing voting intentions in CPC-held ridings and encouraging those voters in swing ridings to think again.

It's not as if the golf course in Shawinigan was built in a Tory riding.

The government of Canada belongs to everyone. This sort of cronyism is precisely what Harper so vehemently campaigned against during his time in opposition. Now it's de rigeur Conservative policy to pork barrel while the Canadians who really need the jobs sit in the cold. What happened?

I wish our constitution had included, even as part of the philosophical preamble, a sense of responsibility to future generations. It's lens through which one could, and should, judge the legislation and policies of the day more explicitly. It wouldn't be the most radical thing in the world, but it might allow for a wiser approach to everything to spending, to environmental policy, to education, and so forth.

More radically, I suppose it would be possible to include a consideration of future generations as a requirement for any and all legislation. I know most anything could be rhetorically rendered as satisfying the concern, but it would at least force us to think and talk about it a bit more (beyond bland symbolic appeals).

To be fair to our Founding Fathers, I think part of the reason the Senate was set up as it was, was to take the "long view" of things. If you pass something, you are likely still going to be around in fifteen years when the sh$tstorm hits, so you might want to mention to the HOC that this isn't a particularly prudent course. And yet it still gives the HOC the leeway to deal with the here and now.

One of the things this government would like to change, of course.

2Jenn on September 30, 2009 at 8:46 am

Fair enough. But in the same way that any legislation must satisfy constitutional criteria such as the Charter, it would be worth asking if any benefit could come from also having it satisfy an obligation to future generations.

Maybe it's too ethereal a concept to be effectively used. But the foundation of western democratic constitutions was formed in a time when resources were seen as limitless, human impact of a planetary scale was unimagined, and even wealth was seen as something that could be endlessly generated through more exploration, exploitation (resources, etc.), population, and so forth. Heck, one could argue such a worldview was still largely present in 1982.

I'm not saying it would fix anything, just that it may be a concept that is now more explicitly part of mainstream philosophical awareness, and as such should at least be considered as part of the explicit guidance for policy and legislation.

Wherry, if you're not working on a novel of some sort, you really should consider it. Fiction, biography, journalistic (perhaps something in a fictionalized account of the House?) – I don't care, but your prose is freakin' brilliant.

Tory ridings got twice as much money as Liberal ridings. Oh, I forgot. There are twice as many Tory ridings as Liberal ridings.

Everybody. Take a valium. This program is being coordinated with provincial and municipal governments. In case our partisan friends haven't noticed, not all provincial and municipal governments are Tory.

If I'm not mistaken, the riding with the sngle largest per capita grant was one of the Windsor ridings held by the NDP because of auto bailout money. NDP. I repeat. NDP.

Why has the government insisted on filtering through 3 levels of bureaucracy? They chose the least efficient method that's most prone to abuse and then this somehow is allows them to wash their hands of responsibility? Give me a break.

It's easy to put a foil on top and point to it in an effort to argue against favourtism. One riding to distract from the rest isn't going to cut it. Further, no auto bailout money has flowed yet.

Why has the government insisted on filtering through 3 levels of bureaucracy? They chose the least efficient method that's most prone to abuse and then this somehow is allows them to wash their hands of responsibility? Give me a break. Tell me, who has the final say for funding approvals?

It's easy to put a foil on top and point to it in an effort to argue against favourtism. One riding to distract from the rest isn't going to cut it. Further, no auto bailout money has flowed yet.

Why has the government insisted on filtering through 3 levels of bureaucracy? They chose the least efficient method that's most prone to abuse and then this somehow is allows them to wash their hands of responsibility? Give me a break. Cabinet has the final say in all project approvals.

It's easy to put a foil on top and point to it in an effort to argue against favourtism. One riding to distract from the rest isn't going to cut it. Further, no auto bailout money has flowed yet.

Why has the government insisted on filtering through 3 levels of bureaucracy? They chose the least efficient method that's most prone to abuse and then this somehow allows them to wash their hands of responsibility. Give me a break. Tell me, who has the final say for funding approvals?

It's easy to put a foil on top and point to it in an effort to argue against favourtism. One riding to distract from the rest isn't going to cut it. Further, no auto bailout money has flowed yet. Your arguments are bogus.

Hard not to disagree with that one, Is fair share the same as equal? How are you defining "fair", it is a fairly broad term

As a research point, try and find rejected projects….excluding Millers ridiculous srtreetcar proposal, is there a higher rejection rate in Liberal ridings vs con ridings, and can they find a con riding project where a certain project was accepted and yet the smae project in a lib, bloc or ndp riding was either rejected or given substaintially less money?

If you can demonstarte that then I think Kennedy has a stronger case.

He is doing the right kind of work but it is fodder for the spin cycle for the moment.

Of course a small municipality won't be able to afford anything to begin with. Or if they are, they'll have to go deep into debt because of the imposed 1/3 funding formula cooked up by Flaherty.

This is where the Gas Tax distribution formula would've saved so much headache and would've actually had shovels in the ground *this* construction season. Any potential for political interference would've been avoided.

Of course a small municipality won't be able to afford anything to begin with. Or if they are, they'll have to go deep into debt because of the imposed 1/3 funding formula cooked up by Flaherty.

This is where the Gas Tax distribution formula would've saved so much headache and would've actually had shovels in the ground *this* construction season. Any potential for political interference is removed.

Of course, a small municipality won't be able to afford anything to begin with. Or if they are, they'll have to go deep into debt because of the imposed 1/3 funding formula cooked up by Flaherty.

This is where the Gas Tax distribution formula would've saved so much headache and would've actually had shovels in the ground *this* construction season. Any potential for political interference would've been avoided.

"Mr. Speaker, Canadians should be able to count on their government to help them find jobs no matter how they vote and no matter where they live, but instead we have a government that is using infrastructure money like a rewards program,” the Liberal leader alleged.

And the lesson is . . . vote Tory. Of course when the Liberals were doling it out under Uncle Jean the lesson to be learned was vote liberal. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. One is quite amazed to see the Loyal Opposition drawing everyone's attention to this basic political fact. And one is hard put to see how this will benefit their political prospects.

Those people who voted for Harper's party in protest of this kind of thing happening with the sponsorship scandal may be convinced to turn away from Harper's party with the Stimulus Scandal. (Name coined right here folks, remember that)

Personally, I hope they all vote for the Rhinos. Just think, if the people who didn't vote came out and voted for the Rhinos, we could have a majority government that is completely honest in its intentions.

I had hoped so after the Dion nomination. For about one hot minute there was the potential for a Dion-Kennedy-Trudeau leadership lineage (which would've been decidedly in the Left of the Liberal camp and probably would've meant that we'd see the Left unite sometime in our lifetimes).

I think Kennedy's lack of fluent French and a university degree as well as his support of Dion in 2006 have taken some of the shine off. My Liberal friends tell me they see him as a future cabinet minister, not a leader, but .one never knows.

What, after all this CON initiated anti-intellectualizing and tut-tuting of people from the educated classes from Harper himself? Here's a guy who got a masters in economics and never bothered (or couldn't) put it to use… Seems like its just as much wallpaper to help attract the charming Ms Teskey.

I agree, while not all of it may be correct, it is a different level of crticism than the name calling and hand waving that usually goes on. So I have revised my opinion of him as well…..he was in the "himbo" category before.

But Two Yen below has it right, I think. His lack of fluency (which can change) and his support for Dion will be very hard to live down (cuts to judgement). But you know, Peter Mackay has probably revived himself to be a viable candidate next time. Immeadiately following the merger he was pretty toxic.

They should have seen him as a viable present leadership candidate in 2006, and played a good long game. Of course, if Mackenzie King himself were still around today, contemporary Liberal strategists could probably find a way to only get him a slim minority, so it's hard to be revisionist about Gerard Kennedy. Nevertheless, I get the sense that people who are serious about governing will have the time of day for him in future leadership contests.

You know, being executive director of Toronto's food bank is hardly a matter of schlepping hampers around. One could argue it provides a better skill set, in terms of management/leadership and public/political engagement, than working as a policy wonk or an academic (without diminishing those vocations).

Wherry, your Liberal leanings are showing again. While Mr. Kennedy is a formidable attacker of the govt side, he really is weak on his facts. He is cherry-picking when it comes to numbers to try and support a deceitful position.

If the final tally of funding/riding turns out to be relatively fair, and if Kennedy's allegations turn out to be disingenuous as you suggest, then Kennedy should be forced to resign. These were serious allegations.

H2H I agree – but the bloody government should be able to provide this data fully!

The City of Toronto is home to approximately 8% of Canada's population. If Toronto's $200M is its entire share….then one would expect the total stimulus funds nationally to be, oh, about $2.5 billion. ($2.5 billion x 8% = $200 millon)

All of yours and my speculation is entirely irrelevant. The government has the data and thus far hasn't provided it – whether this is a bureaucratic issue or a political one I don't know. But I want the data!

Notice: Your email may not yet have been verified. Please check your email, click the link to verify your address, and then submit your comment. If you can't find this email, access your profile editor to re-send the confirmation email. You must have a verified email to submit a comment. Once you have done so, check again.

Almost Done!

Please confirm the information below before signing up.

{* #socialRegistrationForm *}
{* socialRegistration_firstName *}
{* socialRegistration_lastName *}
{* socialRegistration_emailAddress *}
{* socialRegistration_displayName *}
By clicking "Create Account", I confirm that I have read and understood each of the website terms of service and privacy policy and that I agree to be bound by them.